Originally posted by: DrPizza
I have one big question:
Torpid, what kind of medical background do YOU have that gives any credibility, whatsoever, to your *opinion* that medical equipment and advanced training was necessary?
What sort of medical background did the medic have? 10 weeks of combined training over a dozen fields of expertise, over 30 years ago. I am not claiming to be a medical expert. I am claiming that the guy saying "I was a vietnam medic, I know how to treat it" would not make me even remotely confident that the guy had adequate medical knowledge to treat a major head wound, and that alone does not make this fool's actions justifiable.
btw, what equipment is this that you speak of? Are you implying that every time a child bumps their head, they should have a CT scan?
No, I'm implying that SOME kids will need one.
For the patient with concussion and contusion, observation and management of increased <if present> ICP are the pripary management strategies"
ICP: increased cranial pressure
Clinical manifestations of ICP: (and will differ for different parts of the brain)
- Change in level of consciousness
temperature may go up
decrease in motor functions
The kid had ocular signs. Did you bother to read the OP or any of the numerous posts in this thread?
So, Mr. I'm not a medical expert, but I'm still going to tell people what kind of medical care they need anyway,
That is the JOB OF THE CASE WORKER. The case worker was doing their job. The sheriff was doing his job. The judge was doing his job. The only one who did not seem to be doing a good job was the father, because he refused a court order and could have been arrested, which is certainly not a good thing for a father of 10 kids to do.
From the case worker's perspective
A) The guy could have been lying
B) Even if he weren't lying, the case worker saw signs of serious injury
What I'm reading seems to contradict what you think is necessary.
"My son just puked!" Think that takes a lot of special training to recognize? Something that *you'd* forget how to recognize after 10 years?
It was 30 years. And a "huge" bruise and unresponsive eye would make me worry enough to seek at least some degree of medical attention. But that's irrelevant, because a court order and sheriff at my door sure as hell would make me take my kid in.
Do you think that every time a child bumps their head or gets a bruise, they should go to the ER? No wonder the cost of medical insurance is going up so much! You're talking about $1000 in costs, or more, just so the doctor can say "well, put some ice on it and take some tylenol. Bring him back in if his symptoms change."
edit: I am not a doctor, but at least I backed up my opinion; something you haven't done in the dozen or so posts you've had in this thread. In the end, it sounds very much like the combat veteran was right. I'll personally ask for a real doctor's opinion on this one.
The combat veteran was right by REFUSING THE COURT ORDER? Are you serious? That is about the dumbest conclusion you can possibly draw. I don't care if you are the world's most skilled doctor... if you refuse a court order requiring you to take your kids in, then you are wrong, PERIOD. Regardless of whether you were right about your diagnosis, the fact is that he disobeyed the law.
You have not backed up anything except the idea that IF, note that is a big if, the medic had adequate knowledge about how to assess a head injury some 30+ years after his training, then he was right to not seek medical attention. You have provided ZERO evidence that the medic, after thirty years (yes, vietnam was in fact more than 10 years ago), still knew the information you posted, or that anyone should believe that his training over 30 years ago for 10 weeks was adequate.